Let's Think Twice about Bombing Iran

The Israeli threats to bomb Iran are nothing new. They’ve been going on for about five years. But this last week or so there’s been a disturbing upsurge. So I feel I have to say something. If there’s a one in a thousand chance someone might hear me, I have to try. And if no one listens, at least I’ve said it. So I’m double-posting this article in both my blogs, for what it’s worth.

Can we think twice about bombing Iran? Let’s say we could actually stop them from getting the bomb. Even then, I’m not sure we should try. We have a bomb, what makes us think they shouldn’t have one? But that’s a moot point. Everyone agrees that the best case scenario is that we’d slow down their bomb program for a year or so. If we’re afraid they might use the bomb on us, doesn’t bombing them first pretty much guarantee it?

I know what’s going on. There’s an atmosphere of panic in Israel, whipped up by our leaders. “Achmadinejad is the new Hitler, and he wants to wipe out Israel and all the Jews.” Well, I don’t buy it. If they love killing Jews so much, why don’t they start with the 20,000 Jews living peacefully right in the middle of Iran? And by the way, if they tried to do that, I’d be the first to say let’s hit them with everything we’ve got, and damn the consequences. But life goes on pretty much normally for the Jews of Iran. Can’t we just leave it that way?

Iran is a proud country, the home of an ancient culture, that has not launched a war of aggression in some five hundred years. They have no love for Israel, but that is their business. It is true that they provide material support to our enemies in Lebanon and Gaza, but that is their perogative, just as America supplies us with arms. Iran does not threaten to bomb America on that account; why should we threaten to bomb them for the same reason? It is true they might have had a hand in the outrage committed twenty years ago in Buenos Aires, and that is arguably less forgivable; but equally despicable acts have been carried out by agents of the American, British, and other secret services. Do I need to mention Pinochet, the Contras, and even the SAVAK?  At least support of these kind of acts does not appear to be an element of current Iranian foreign policy. Can we say the same for ourselves? Before we climb up on our moral high horse, we ought to watch what we’re sitting in.  

The leaders of Iran are not shy about expressing their dislike of Israel; but at the same time, they have clearly stated that they have no interest in interfering with any agreement we might reach with the Palestinians. They have a legitimate interest in seeing that any such agreement is not arrived at through undue coercion, and we need to respect their support of Hizbullah and Hamas in that light. And other than the occasional tasteless comments questioning the Holocaust, I find their public positions on these matters are much more reasonable than Israel’s ongoing campaing of threats.

And what about the consequences? I don’t want to argue that we should hold back because we’re afraid of Iran’s response. If we need to do it, we need to do it. But let’s be realistic. We got away with this kind of thing twice before, in Iraq and recently again in Syria. Let’s not push our luck. Those enemies were not in a position to do us much damage. Iran is another ball of wax. If we poke them they will hit back with everything they’ve got, and it won’t be pretty. Think World War III, Armageddon, End of Days…you get the idea.

The point is it’s all so unnecessary. The surest way for us to avert the threat of an Iranian attack is to make peace with the Palestinians. The Saudis have done all the diplomatic leg work for us, getting the whole Arab League to sign on to their peace plan, and yet we just ignore them. I just don’t know where we think we’re going with all this.

In which the Registrar explains my rights

 

The Registrar finally explains why he is not willing to put his allegations in writing: because this is not a legal proceeding. I am therefore entitled to only those rights which the Registrar wishes to accord me, as he explains in the following email: 

 

Dear Marty,

 

I am not refusing to provide you the information on the accusations; I do not wish to provide it to you prior to our meeting. I find that the language you are using is the language of legal proceedings, and this is not a legal proceeding. I have heard one side of a story and I want to hear your side. Otherwise, I have to make a decision based on the information I have. I really do want to talk with you and hear your concerns as well as finding out what explanation you have for the perceptions that others have developed of you.

 

You remain a student in the program and are able to attend class, but I need to get to the bottom of the situation with the concerns. Regarding the removal from the practicum at the school, again, the Education Faculty is awaiting the resolution of the process of addressing these concerns, in order to move forward.

 

Best wishes,

Colin

Ripped off Again by Greenshield

Last month I wrote about how my U of W dental insurance provider, Greenshield Canada, ripped me off on a broken tooth. My dental bill was $400, and they sent me a check for $38. After I complained, they followed up with another check for about $100, but that's still short by half of the 70% coverage they're supposedly providing.

Then, a few weeks later, I lost a filling. I went back to the dentist for repairs, and it came to $280. At a copay of 30%, I should have had almost $200 coming back to me. Today I got the check from Greenshield: it was $109.97. I'm sure they have some reason why the services I got were supposedly not covered, but it stinks. You break a tooth or a filling falls out...aren't those the kind of things a dental plan is supposed to cover? This is nothing but a scam.
 

Enough is enough already

Sent Jan. 5 2012:

TO: The President of the University of Winnipeg

Vice-President Academic, University of Winnipeg

Colin Russel, Registrar, University of Winnipeg

RE: Suspension from my practicum at Gordon Bell High School

Dear Prof Russell:

I reluctantly find that your ongoing refusal to provide full written documentation of the allegations against me constitutes an egregious violation of my right to procedural fairness. You should know that this right is explicitly guaranteed me in University policies; and even if it were not, it would still be available to me under the principles of the common law. It is not in my interests to share with you at this time the reasons for my insistence on this information, other than to point out that you do not have the right to continue to withold it.

It has now been seven weeks since I was suspended from my practicum and I have not yet been given the opportunity to see the allegations which led to this suspension. I find it outrageous that my rights continue to be violated in this way on a daily basis and insist that you immediately provide me with complete information, including all testimony recorded against me and any other evidence you have relied on up to this point, as well as full listing of the charges which you intend to press against me. Failing that, I demand that all charges be dropped and I be immediately restored to my previous status as a student in good standing with all the associated privileges.

Marty Green

In which the Registrar plays the safety card

It was only a matter of time. Go back and read the Registrar's original indictment of me. I'm rude, disrespectful, dominating, you name it. But there's nothing about me being dangerous, is there? What about that bit about me being "prone to personal attacks on students and professors"? I think if they had meant physical attacks, they would have been a little more specific, wouldn't they? No matter. Now my presence in class has become a safety concern:

Dear Marty,

My purpose is to ensure a safe learning environment for all students, including you, and to ensure the opportunity for student success, including yours. The allegations that have been made attest to perceptions of you that have developed in the minds of some of your instructors and peers, as well as staff and administration at your practicum placement. If those perceptions are based on malice or erroneous assumptions I need to counter-act them in order to restore your standing and reputation. Point 1 below indicates to me that you have your own perceptions, and counter-allegations against those instructors and peers, and I would very much like to hear your account. I will go into the detail of allegations in our meeting as pertinent, and I will be happy to hear details of your allegations, but the point of the meeting is to have a general discussion about this matter so I can fully understand the situation. An innovative solution such as a transfer to the Access program is an interesting one, and I reiterate that I am committed to seeing how you can complete your educational goals, as well as ensuring a safe learning environment for you and everybody else. I again request that you meet with me immediately in order that we can address this matter. Tomorrow, Wednesday, I am currently available between 11:30 and 2:00.

Best wishes,

Colin

So the Registrar wants to hear my side of the story so he can restore my standing and reputation for me. I hate to tell him, but that's my job, not his. God help me if I was stupid enough to rely on the Registrar to restore my reputation.

Can they expel you for being an a**hole?

Let's say everyone agrees I'm a terrible person. Can they expel me for that or do I actually have to do something first?

I follow the news from Israel via Haaretz Online, and the other day there was a story I found outrageous about a Palestinian being arrested for "being a security threat". Maybe it reminded me of my own situation vis-a-vis the University, but I wrote a talk-back comment where I asked what kind of crime it was to "be a security threat". I didn't know if anyone else would find that peculiar: certainly the University considers it a very serious offense to be "rude, confrontational, aggressive etc". without finding it necessary to specify what actions constituted the supposed rudeness etc. on my part. In any case I was gratified to check in later and find that not only did many others post to express very similar opinions to mine, but my own post actually had the highest approval rating (118:5, thumbs up vs thumbs down) of all the 31 talk-backs posted online.

I'm not used to people agreeing with me, but it's kind of nice once in a while.

In which I tell the Registrar to s*** or get off the pot.

I couldn't very well expect the Registrar to disturb his two-week Christmas break by worrying about my little problems, so instead, I spent two weeks waiting for the Registrar to respond to my request for disclosure. After giving that request, his due consideration, I received the following response the day before the resumption of classes in January:

Dear Marty,

I would like to have a meeting with you to hear your response to the allegations, but it is not designed as a setting in which you have to defend yourself. I do not want to send you the documents that constitute the complaints; my summary establishes the nature of the complaints and I simply want to talk with you about the concerns that have been raised. I hope that you are available in the next day or so to meet. I could meet anytime between 9:00 and 4:00 tomorrow, Wednesday, or between 10:00 and 3:00 on Thursday.

Best wishes,

Colin

 

Wow, it's like he's my best friend now. I don't even have to defend myself; he just wants to talk to me. The problem is, I don't buy it. Call me a hardass, but it's not my job to help him make his case. Either he shows me his case or he doesn't have a case.  I replied the next day:

Dear Mr. Russell:

My sole purpose throughout this affair has been to ensure that I am able to graduate with a teaching certificate along with the rest of my class in 2013. If you are willing to discuss means whereby I can achieve this goal, I will be willing to meet with you. But I have already suffered serious damages to my reputation and employment prospects, not to mention the incredible distress caused to myself and members of my family; therefore, I must be assured of total vindication with regard to all the malicious allegations against me. If the University is not willing to provide a documented list of detailed complaints, including times, dates, and signatures, especially those with regard to the termination of my practicum, then I must insist that all proceedings against me be terminated without delay, and that I be restored to my previous status as a student in good standing. In addition to the immediate restoration of my practicum privileges, this means:

1. An end to being singled out for ridicule and scorn in front of other students by professors including Bush, Metz, and Bell, and in the case of Bush, a public apology for the incident of which he is fully aware and an undertaking to never again conduct the kind of in-class “experiment” which led to the incident.

2. An end to being given low or failing grades for work which would otherwise have merited A’s according to the normal standards of the Education Faculty.

3. The restoration of my sponsorship to the Calgary student teacher’s conference, which was arbitrarily cancelled following initiation of these procedings.

4. Compensation for loss of income due to being arbitrarily fired without cause from my job as a piano teacher in the after-school program at Gordon Bell.

5. Compensation for lost earning power as a result of time which I may need to spend making up for my lost Fall practicum next spring.

I understand some of these demands may fall outside your immediate jurisdiction, but given the treatment which I have already suffered I feel they are the minimum which I can accept at this time. As a practical matter, I feel it might facilitate a speedier resolution to this issue if the Faculty would consider allowing me to transfer to the Access Program. I have already discussed my situation with faculty there and they have responded positively to this idea.

Marty Green